Williams: Understanding past does not condone it

Jon Hubbard, a Republican member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, has a book titled “Letters to the Editor: Confessions of a Frustrated Conservative.”

Among its statements for which Hubbard has been criticized and disavowed by the Republican Party is, “The institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.”

Hubbard’s observation reminded me of my 1972 job interview at the University of Massachusetts. During a reception, one of the Marxist professors asked me what I thought about the relationship between capitalism and slavery. My response was slavery has existed everywhere in the world, under every political and economic system, and was by no means unique to capitalism or the United States.

Perturbed by my response, he asked me what my feelings were about the enslavement of my ancestors. I answered slavery is a despicable violation of human rights but the enslavement of my ancestors is history, and one of the immutable facts of history is that nothing can be done to change it.

The matter could have been left there, but I volunteered that today’s American blacks have benefited enormously from the horrible suffering of our ancestors. Why? I said the standard of living and personal liberty of black Americans are better than what blacks living anywhere in Africa have. I then asked the professor what it was that explained how tens of millions of blacks came to be born in the U.S. instead of Africa. He wouldn’t answer, but an answer other than slavery would have been sheer idiocy. I attempted to assuage the professor’s and his colleagues’ shock by explaining to them that to morally condemn a practice such as slavery does not require one to also deny its effects.

My yet-to-be-learned lesson — and perhaps that of Rep. Hubbard — is there are certain topics or arguments that one should not bring up in the presence of children or those with little understanding. Both might see that explaining a phenomenon is the same as giving it moral sanction or justification. It’s as if one’s explanation that the independent influence of gravity on a falling object is to cause it to accelerate at 32 feet per second could be interpreted as giving moral sanction and justification to gravity.

Slavery is widely misunderstood, and as such has been a tool for hustlers and demagogues. Slavery has been part of the human condition throughout recorded history and everywhere on the globe. Romans enslaved other Europeans; Greeks enslaved other Greeks; Asians enslaved Asians; Africans enslaved Africans; and in the New World, Aztecs enslaved Aztecs and other native groups. Even the word slave is derived from the fact that Slavic people were among the early European slaves.

Though racism has been used to justify slavery, the origins of slavery had little to do with racism. In recent history, the major slave traders and slave owners have been Arabs, who enslaved Europeans, black Africans and Asians. A unique aspect of slavery in the Western world was the moral outrage against it, which began to emerge in the 18th century and led to massive efforts to eliminate it. It was Britain’s military might and the sight of the Union Jack on the high seas that ultimately put an end to the slave trade.

Unfortunately, the facts about slavery are not the lessons taught in our schools and colleges. The gross misrepresentation and suggestion in textbooks and lectures is that slavery was a uniquely American practice done by racist white people to black people. Despite abundant historical evidence, youngsters are taught nothing about how the founding fathers quarreled, debated and agonized over the slave issue.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and chief author (1794): ""I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Quoting from Dr. Williams column: "Though racism has been used to justify slavery, the origins of slavery had little to do with racism. In recent history, the major slave traders and slave owners have been Arabs, who enslaved Europeans, black Africans and Asians. A unique aspect of slavery in the Western world was the moral outrage against it, which began to emerge in the 18th century and led to massive efforts to eliminate it. It was Britain’s military might and the sight of the Union Jack on the high seas that ultimately put an end to the slave trade.

Unfortunately, the facts about slavery are not the lessons taught in our schools and colleges. The gross misrepresentation and suggestion in textbooks and lectures is that slavery was a uniquely American practice done by racist white people to black people. Despite abundant historical evidence, youngsters are taught nothing about how the founding fathers quarreled, debated and agonized over the slave issue."

I would add that after 1805, the sight of the Stars & Stripes on the high seas helped to put an end to the slave trade. The Constitution allowed the US congress to control the slave trade after 1807, and laws were passed shortly after that year allowing US Navy ships to capture ships engaged in the slave trade.

One of our first wars was the one against the Barbary coast pirates (operating out of what is now Algeria, Tunisia and Libya) who captured and enslaved thousands of Europeans, and many American sailors. The USS Constitution (Old Ironsides), the USS Constellation, the USS President, the USS United States, the USS Congress, and the USS Chesapeake were launched in 1797 to combat the French Navy and ultimately fought against the Barbary Coast pirates. Old Ironsides is still in service, and is the oldest commissioned naval vessel in existence in the entire world.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

@ I said the standard of living and personal liberty of black Americans are better than what blacks living anywhere in Africa have.

I often hear this argument and wonder what the standard of living in Africa might be today if so many of the young and the strong had not been removed for slavery back then. A quick search shows about 12 million people were removed. That had to have been a huge blow and it had to have been a massive set back.

Yes, Africa might look different if the 12 million removed in the slave trade had remained; however, how different the United States might look today if the 50 million abortions performed had not taken place.

One can posit that added population could have resulted in major changes to the status quo with positive benefits to all. One fact that can not be denied, however, is that much of the population of Africa today lives just as they did 4,000 years ago even though the most advanced culture at the time, Egypt, existed there. How could there have been such failure to advance?

There's been such failure to advance in Africa thanks in large part to the leadership of those African Countries taking most of the spoils for themselves, maintaining crazily unstable governments that scare away private investment and keeping their people depressed so as to maintain control. Hmmmm, a few parallels to what's happening here in our own backyard.

As to the question how would the USA look if 50 million abortions hadn't happened? I don't think our welfare and Medicaid roles could accommodate another, say, 45 million mouths to feed plus the millions more those mouths would produce.

FYI matted...you can't go "back" to someplace you've never been.
Stillnat pointed out a vital factor that Williams seemed to overlook. How much did the slave trade and subsequent colonialism damage the infrastructure of African nations? Why do they have struggles in the areas of government, education, economy, human rights issues, etc?
This is a multi dimensional issue that Williams reduced to a "thank God my ancestors suffered so I don't have to" argument which is weak, pedestrian, and quite frankly just an example of Williams political pandering. I would expect more from a scholar.

The 12 million removed should have actually help their development. I don't believe the traders on both side were looking for smart slaves but rather strong backs. On the other side the tribal leaders did not want to trade off their productive members either. If they did then it was at the leaders own fault.

I don't dispute the negative effects of slavery, however if you look at causal relations to current issues on the continent they can be more directly traced to colonialism (I suggest the Yale study The Long-Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa by Michalopoulos and Papaioannou for a concise look at the overall issues not merely focused on a certain region but Africa as a whole) and it's negative after effects.

If one can extend their logic to surmise that present day African-Americans should be grateful for slavery (gulp, ugh, excuse me I just threw up a bit in my mouth even typing that sentence) then by the same logic shouldn't any previously subjugated peoples be "grateful" for having benefited from the erroneous policy of the "White Man's Burden"? And if such is correct then are we not only sanctioning the antiquated policy but running the risk of extending it into this century? I dare say people are far more grateful to be allowed the self-determination of a nation to succeed or fail without the interference and exploitation of outside forces.

When one excuses past evils one runs the risk of perpetuating them. That is something that should never rest easy on the conscience of any of us.

There's been such failure to advance in Africa thanks in large part to the leadership of those African Countries taking most of the spoils for themselves, maintaining crazily unstable governments that scare away private investment and keeping their people depressed so as to maintain control. Hmmmm, a few parallels to what's happening here in our own backyard."

Let's briefly review the history of Africa in the modern period (WB Texan do you know when that starts?)

Africa was dominated by colonial masters primarily Great Britain, and France with some Belgian colonies, German influence, and Portuguese among the others.

The British and the French both estbalished very lucrative colonies. The British Colonies tended to be run by charasmatic "men on the spot" while the French favored one tribe over another, usually based on religious conversion or physical features (Ex. Tutsi vs. Hutu tribes).

After the World Wars in the 20th century neither England or France could maintain their colonies and de-colonization began apace. As the Cold War began to gain momentum the US and the USSR began to look for proxies through whom they could wage the Cold War on continents outside of Europe. The US supported strong men in Africa, Asia and the Middle East who above all else were anti-communist with little concern as to how these men organized their governments. When the USSR collapsed, America pulled back to a large degree from these countries leaving them rudderless.

It is wholly a mischaracterization of Africa today to blame the problems of African countries entirely on its native peoples when their resources, government, and people were exploited to the ends of empire and in many ways continue to be exploited today.

@ Max @ The British and the French both estbalished very lucrative colonies. The British Colonies tended to be run by charasmatic "men on the spot" while the French favored one tribe over another, usually based on religious conversion or physical features

Yes the lack of young able bodied people made it easy for the British and French to move in and colonize.

Matted, tribal leaders did not give up their own people, they had wars and took POWs to sell into slavery, the result was all of the working age, able bodied people being taken away.

@jisgood, I don't think you can necessarily say that our population is so much lower because of abortion. Many who have abortions young go on to procreate later when they are older and settled. They may not have done so had they been birthin' babies at a younger age.

Williams takes a pragmatic view of slavery. I do not understand his comment about how racism wasn't present when slaves were first brought to North Anerica. It's my understanding that ethnocentrism certainly existed --look at Europeans dealings with the Indians.
With that said, I know racism was encouraged especially among poor whites to prevent them from allying with blacks. I've always understood that it was easy to do this because those of European descent already had the propensity toward prejudice of other races.

DML...referring to oneself as African-Amercan is an acknowledgment of your heritage just as with Mexican-Americans, Italian-Americans etc. No one can can go back to a place they have never been; it's an impossibility though I realize you're just being contentious. I do have a question, if you find the term "African-American" so objectionable then what, pray tell, would you prefer? I'm waiting with baited breath as I'm sure it will be a doozy, probably straight out of Uncle Reamus or Lil Sambo.

Here's a little note to self...African-Americans are proud of being African-American. After a long history of being made to feel ashamed from birth it is a triumph to be proud of oneself and one's community.
You may prefer American; but then again (shocker!) you don't get to make the rules for everyone else.

Nor do you get to make the rules. I don't have to call you African-American any more than I can require you to call me Scottish-American. I am proud of my heritage. I even gave a kilt with my tartan (bet you would love to see me wearing that) but I can be proud and still be simply an American. I am proud of my heritage but that pales in comparison to the pride I have for being a citizen of the USA. Nowhere else, just here.